You do not have JavaScript enabled. It is required to use webDiplomacy fully.

Forum

A place to discuss topics/games with other webDiplomacy players.

Start a new discussion in the public forum

Post a new thread

If your post relates to a particular game please include the URL or ID#
of the game.
We get a lot of feature requests. If your feature request isn't already on our issue tracker,
then the best place to ask is the forum. This will help us gauge support for your ideas, before we add it to the todo list.
If you are posting a question please check the FAQ before posting.
If your message is long you may need to write a summary message, and add the full message as a reply.

I want to learn how to code, but am having trouble deciding where to start. Their are many free resources, online classes, boot camps, etc. I would prefer to teach myself, but lack the knowledge to know what language I should be learning first and so on. Any tips from the experienced code writers here on WebDip?

Is there a rule against holding a stalemate indefinitely even though the situation is clear? I think he's hoping the rest of us give up and leave, which if it isn't against the rules yet then it should be.

I don't particularly care for PPSC. But saw that another thread was having this discussion as a sidebar and thought it fair to start a discussion thread. There is reasonable support for PPSC and regardless of the majority opinion the minority's should be heard.

Do you play chess? There's an old saying that the threat is greater than the execution. Obviously someone who is reduced to actually making the kamikaze attack is doomed regardless, but that's a failure of diplomacy, because the person who can make the kamikaze attack should have used that fact to negotiate with the person who's pressuring him towards that extremity and get into the draw. Again, the idea that giving someone the kamikaze option reduces his options is absurd.

In PPSC, there's no incentive to stop attacking because the attacker is getting big (good if there's a solo) and narrowing the draw (good if there's no solo), and isn't worried about the small power's kingmaking abilities because there isn't much point in being the king.

"Do you have any evidence or arguments for why eliminations are more common in PPSC vs. WTA games?"

I make no claims on that scale. For all I know, WTA players get eliminated more because PPSC players don't know how to play the game, or vice versa.

"Right. Moreover, the given scenario with two Great Powers which dominate the board which is used to criticize PPSC scoring suggests that minor Great Powers face an inevitable solo from two directions."

Nope. The whole point of the criticism is when the solo is not tactically inevitable but the incentives make it inevitable. Really, there's no such thing as a solo that's inevitable from two directions.

"From a points-incentive perspective, those diplomatic options in a WTA scoring system don't hold the weight they do in a PPSC scoring system because simply holding territory is no guarantee of any points reward in WTA scoring whereas holding territory is a guarantee of points reward in PPSC scoring."

Are you for real? Holding territory is no guarantee of point rewards in WTA only if there's a solo threat. A solo threat outweighing mere point count is a *good thing* and does *not* make holding territory irrelevant, as territory confers the power to (a) become a solo threat and (b) survive draw-whittling.

Nice verballing job Lethologica. ( we had corrupt police who would fabricate confessions from "suspects", a practise known as verballing ) You allege that MajorMitchell's PPSC modus operandi is " to ally, grow big together, then throw the solo to one member of the alliance " The first two bits are reasonably accurate, my modus operandi is to try to form alliances and share the success and sc's...but "then throw the solo to one member of the alliance" is the misrepresentation that uses the emotive term "throw" with all that it implies. Nice smear job. Think it out dopey...there will be tension, competition within the alliance, one player, perhaps because of luck in that he was favoured by silly play and disbands by his "victims" compared to the other player in the alliance who might have had to fight a tougher opponent, that one player for a variety of possible reasons ends up far better positioned to go for the solo...that I think would be more common than this idiotic view, imho, that all parties in an alliance will progress at uniformly equal rate, have equal strategic and tactical abilities & success.

No, MM, all you've done is confirm that my view of your strategy is accurate. I don't know where you found the idiotic view that all parties in an alliance will always progress equally, but it sure wasn't from anything I said or any position I hold. On the other hand, agreeing beforehand to give the solo to whoever happens to be in better position for it is, in fact, throwing the solo.

You're the only one who doesn't recognize what you're doing. I don't expect you to change your mind about it. But not recognizing what you're doing doesn't change what you're doing.

Ha, you said it yourself Lethologica, and if course all parties in alliances don't grow at uniformly equal rates, so that's one way how one will get the best opportunity to solo without there being any throwing of the game. No agreement to throw the game is made, simply the agreement to work together against all other players first, not attack each other, and each player can go for the solo within that framework...

Then once it becomes clear which player has the best position to solo with PPSC the alliance can control the end game, eliminate all other players and split the points 9/17 to the winner and 8/17 to the loyal ally

People are diverse, so there's diversity in how we play this game, what we seek from it, so I'm suggesting there should be some diversity in scoring systems.. Carumba, if you don't like a non wta scoring system, Don't use it, all I'm suggesting is offering a non wta scoring system as an option for others who would like to use it. The current status quo is an imposition of the hegemony of the "WTA" supporters. I say let's cater for diversity.

Then fucking quote me. Except you can't, because nothing I've said anywhere had anything to do with alliances always growing equally. This is a concept you made up out of thin air.

As for the rest...I mean, you're describing the solo-throwing problem in a nutshell. It's just that because you never look beyond how nice it is for a member of the alliance to examine the game design implications--the resulting diplomatic stagnation of fixed alliance structures, and the stultifying effect on players who didn't make it into the initial winning alliance--you see it as a good thing.

Again, I don't expect you to do that looking or to change your mind (though you can if you like). If you want to think my objection to incentivized solo-throwing is that it's some kind of dishonorable match-fixing by the strong second, that's your prerogative. You're still making things abundantly clear for the rest of us.

Well the only game that I think I can be regarded as having "thrown the solo" in was using a wta DSS scoring system, and there was a thread started in response to that, because it did cause a stir. I can assure y'all that the type of scoring system had nothing to do with my "controversial" decision and actions in that game. Lethologica, it was where you said you didn't know where I'd formed the idiotic view that all alliance partners grow equally.

I don't have that view. A heap of factors will influence which player in the alliance I suggest as the example, gets the clear advantage to get the solo, it doesn't need the players to decide that the one with the sexjest player name will be the winner before they've played a move. So you've described one of the factors that decides which player emerges to leadof the two in the alliance as the game is played..unequal growth.

Quoting me saying that I don't have that view doesn't demonstrate that I have that view, MM. It demonstrates the opposite of that. I also never claimed *you* had that view. It's like your inability to read is a hydra--every time I correct your misreading, two more pop up.

And in your haste to disavow that view that no one ever claimed you had, you never addressed the actual problems with your view. Oh, well.

I don’t know if this has been suggested but:1. In draws have everyone alive share the pot equally (As they should because SoS is garbage)2. In a solo, the soloist gains a portion of the pot equal to 18* divided by the number of centers controlled by the soloist or survivors (but not neutral centers or those of resigned powers) and the survivors split the remainder proportionally based on their center count.*Or however many

I wasn't a huge fan of it, but we should do a going away game for the World Map, similar to the Inaugural Known World 901 game we're running. Same deal, we get a mod to make the game the last one before they officially shut it off.

This game: http://webdiplomacy.net/board.php?gameID=187862Attempted Daju to Makuran with Al-Qatta'i support. Somehow, the support is showing as cut, even though no unit attacked Al-Qatta'i. Also, the orders page is showing an error. Please help.

Hey Kiddos someone has to carry Krellin's weight around here! Join up for the greatest So-N-So game yet!!!! No safe spaces,no bitching or crying allowed! Leave your feelings at the sign up button because they will get destroyed!!! We need to continue the legacy of helping bring people closer together via insults!!